• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Arriva Rail North DOO

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
See post 2245.

A cynic or a barrister in court could argue there is a vast difference between a job and a role. The Government wants the RMT gone or neutralised. They had it in their manifesto to neutralise all unions. They don’t like any workforce being able to defend their pay or terms & conditions. They don’t want them on the dole but certainly don’t want them in roles where they can demand decent pay and working conditions.

One thing I have learned recently is that the Government is in charge/control of ALL these negotiations despite them claiming it’s a ‘private company matter’. The Government is negotiating with a trade union it wants gone or neutralised.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
A cynic or a barrister in court could argue there is a vast difference between a job and a role. The Government wants the RMT gone or neutralised. They had it in their manifesto to neutralise all unions. They don’t like any workforce being able to defend their pay or terms & conditions. They don’t want them on the dole but certainly don’t want them in roles where they can demand decent pay and working conditions.

They want 50% of eligible members to vote in favour of industrial action for it to go ahead, not quite the same as what you suggest. Although, David Cameron refused to have a referendum on changing FPTP to proportional representation, never mind wanting 50% of those eligible to vote to vote for a political party for them to get in to government without the assistance of a second party.

Anyway many people would fail to see why their journeys were being disrupted in 2017 if the offer of a second person on board all trains and all guards guaranteed employment until at least 2025 was on the table. Maybe Mick Cash plans to have retired by then?
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,546
They want 50% of eligible members to vote in favour of industrial action for it to go ahead, not quite the same as what you suggest. Although, David Cameron refused to have a referendum on changing FPTP to proportional representation, never mind wanting 50% of those eligible to vote to vote for a political party for them to get in to government without the assistance of a second party.

Anyway many people would fail to see why their journeys were being disrupted in 2017 if the offer of a second person on board all trains and all guards guaranteed employment until at least 2025 was on the table. Maybe Mick Cash plans to have retired by then?

To be fair I think little has been said about another side of this dispute which regardless of whether you would want to strike over it would still have importance to people undertaking the role.

For example a reduction of in job satisfaction leading to increased boredom - I chose to be a guard because it was more technically involved than my last job giving me something to challenge myself day to day which is important. Ripping out the operational side would make the job a lot less fulfilling for me and I think I'd get bored.

Linked to the above is being trapped by your now ringfenced salary in a potentially unfulfilling role with reduced responsibilities especially if the impending e ticketing regime reduces what you have to keep you busy.

Thirdly the removal of prestige and career progression - for a career railwayman being a guard is a responsible job and one to aspire to - again being made subordinate to the driver and losing control over your own train would not be appealing. Particularly if it can just depart without you and you're now formally a 'nice to have'. I like being able to make decisions and I'm not really up for being instructed..

So there's quite a lot that would be going through my mind if faced with that change.

I could of course continue to drudge even if I came to hate the job and do the minimum possible to take my money but what a shame it would be to lose my enthusiasm.

I have no idea if these things matter to you in your job but they certainly do in mine and I'd be deeply upset if all my responsibilities were removed from me as it was a role I worked hard to attain in the first place - and regardless of how I may sometimes come across on here and blowing one's own trumpet, I'm excellent at it.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
I have no idea if these things matter to you in your job but they certainly do in mine and I'd be deeply upset if all my responsibilities were removed from me as it was a role I worked hard to attain in the first place - and regardless of how I may sometimes come across on here and blowing one's own trumpet, I'm excellent at it.

If I was a guard at Northern I would be expecting a guarantee that I would continue to work services as a guard even if it means working some services as a CSA, which I don't think will be less challenging than working some services as an AFC, like some guards currently do, even if it would affect a greater proportion of services. However, if the role of guard was to be got rid completely I would want to know what opportunities will be available for guards e.g. would guards be offered trainee driver vacancies ahead of external applicants or could the parent company of the TOC offer opportunities with another franchise they run?
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
They want 50% of eligible members to vote in favour of industrial action for it to go ahead, not quite the same as what you suggest. Although, David Cameron refused to have a referendum on changing FPTP to proportional representation, never mind wanting 50% of those eligible to vote to vote for a political party for them to get in to government without the assistance of a second party

Requiring the successful party to have over 50% of the votes actually cast would be a good start.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
I’m not suggesting those fortunate enough to have been members of powerful unions and employed by companies only really preoccupied with short term performance, have done anything wrong whatsoever, the industry and govt of the day designed this rather divisive system, and seem to have only recently paid any attention to those that can actually see the bigger picture.


Which is?
 

a_c_skinner

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
1,576
The Government wants the RMT gone or neutralised.

Hardly surprising as the union has taken a very proactive role (some might say it has generated a dispute before any concrete proposals from the employers) and their only acceptable end is an open ended commitment to no change in perpetuity. I'm happy to be corrected but that is how it will seem to a lot of observers. Again with no comment on the merits of the arguments.
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
Hardly surprising as the union has taken a very proactive role (some might say it has generated a dispute before any concrete proposals from the employers) and their only acceptable end is an open ended commitment to no change in perpetuity. I'm happy to be corrected but that is how it will seem to a lot of observers. Again with no comment on the merits of the arguments.

As far as I’m aware the RMT are willing to some changes to the role. But the Government wants the guard to be changed to an ad-hoc customer service role that isn’t required. I believe a leaked memo showed the easiest way to ditch the guard role completely was to change it to a non essential role then slowly let it disappear below the radar. The memo said that making guards redundant would provide negative PR from the job losses.
 

Andrew32

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
492
You mean these
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1508619289821.jpg
    FB_IMG_1508619289821.jpg
    71.5 KB · Views: 59
  • FB_IMG_1508619302769.jpg
    FB_IMG_1508619302769.jpg
    80.4 KB · Views: 49
  • FB_IMG_1508619330438.jpg
    FB_IMG_1508619330438.jpg
    73.8 KB · Views: 45

muz379

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2014
Messages
2,205
Hardly surprising as the union has taken a very proactive role (some might say it has generated a dispute before any concrete proposals from the employers) and their only acceptable end is an open ended commitment to no change in perpetuity. I'm happy to be corrected but that is how it will seem to a lot of observers. Again with no comment on the merits of the arguments.
Before the dispute arose the union and the company exchanged letters then eventually met over a period of several months . The union was clear in asking for a guarantee of a second safety critical member of staff on every train . The company has declined to guarantee this . The unions fundamental position is that all trains should have a second safety critical member of staff on board . Therefore the companies position and the unions position are fundamentally at odds . Ending up in dispute is the natural course of action .

The company wont put any plans to the staff until the union accept no guarantee of a second safety critical member of staff on every train . You could argue that the RMT are wrong for striking and expecting the impossible from the company . But then you must also accept that the companies position in this respect of expecting the RMT to accept something which is at odds with its fundamental principles is also wrong .

My view in that respect is that if the company is so confident that this dispute is just being driven by the political ideology of the upper echelons of the RMT then the company should just put its plans to the staff and allow them to decide what is best for themselves by either accepting or rejecting continuing industrial action . There is no need for a further ballot if the company had something to put to staff which was good enough that it could convince them to stop striking then there would be no need to even force the RMT to carry out another ballot .

Im also hearing reports (although treat this as hearsay if you wish) that the company wont discuss the issue with ASLEF . The company just ignores requests to put it on agendas for meetings .

One of the early arguments the company put forward was that dwell times could be reduced by DCO . In response to this the union indicated it would be prepared to recommend its members accept a scot rail deal with drivers being given responsibility for releasing doors with guards closing them and giving the RTS . This would have satisfied that concern of the companies but this was not accepted by the company . The fact that the RMT was prepared to offer this compromise early on yet there has been no movement on the companies side to me actually demonstrates that the RMT is open to some change in the guards role , but does have a line it is not prepared to negotiate below .
 

the sniper

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2007
Messages
3,500
To be fair I think little has been said about another side of this dispute which regardless of whether you would want to strike over it would still have importance to people undertaking the role.

A lot of Guards I know have little or no interest in doing an OBS style role, other than because they can't afford to give up the wage or find something else to do. It's the losers consolation prize at the end of all this. A crap version of the job you've had taken off you, in a grade that won't have a leg to stand on. Given the increased 'natural' wastage it's perceived there'll be in the new role in comparison to that seen in the existing Guard grades, it's seen as no surprise that they're willing to guarantee jobs for seven years beyond the end of the current franchises, as they must know there probably won't be many of 'the old Guard' left hacking it by then anyway!

If the good times are over, why not go down fighting... Particularly once you throw in any other grievances that there may be with the employer.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,124
One of the early arguments the company put forward was that dwell times could be reduced by DCO . In response to this the union indicated it would be prepared to recommend its members accept a scot rail deal with drivers being given responsibility for releasing doors with guards closing them and giving the RTS . This would have satisfied that concern of the companies but this was not accepted by the company . The fact that the RMT was prepared to offer this compromise early on yet there has been no movement on the companies side to me actually demonstrates that the RMT is open to some change in the guards role , but does have a line it is not prepared to negotiate below .
As far as I’m aware the RMT haven’t offered a compromise so far, but have offered Pendilino style guard operation,
 
Last edited:

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
As far as I’m aware the RMT are willing to some changes to the role. But the Government wants the guard to be changed to an ad-hoc customer service role that isn’t required. I believe a leaked memo showed the easiest way to ditch the guard role completely was to change it to a non essential role then slowly let it disappear below the radar. The memo said that making guards redundant would provide negative PR from the job losses.

You mean these

If those are the 'memos' referred to they are not government policy, they are documents a non-government organisation has written about the pros and cons of DOO. Apparently a leaked source said DfT wanted to look at Northern running services with just a driver on board and roaming teams of RPIs but the bidders (Arriva, Abellio and Govia) all told DfT that wouldn't work on the Northern network.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
A lot of Guards I know have little or no interest in doing an OBS style role, other than because they can't afford to give up the wage or find something else to do. It's the losers consolation prize at the end of all this. A crap version of the job you've had taken off you, in a grade that won't have a leg to stand on. Given the increased 'natural' wastage it's perceived there'll be in the new role in comparison to that seen in the existing Guard grades, it's seen as no surprise that they're willing to guarantee jobs for seven years beyond the end of the current franchises, as they must know there probably won't be many of 'the old Guard' left hacking it by then anyway!

If the good times are over, why not go down fighting... Particularly once you throw in any other grievances that there may be with the employer.

Remember this is the Northern DOO thread not the thread for general DOO discussion and Northern guards have been given a guarantee that they won't have their salary reduced to OBS levels, so they don't need to fight to get it, they get regardless.
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
Remember this is the Northern DOO thread not the thread for general DOO discussion and Northern guards have been given a guarantee that they won't have their salary reduced to OBS levels, so they don't need to fight to get it, they get regardless.

Sorry jcollins but the sniper has a point. Northern guards have been able to see just how the DfT intend to "convert" guards into some other on-board role and they are rightly unimpressed. When I became a guard I was often asked if I was interested in driving: it didn't take me long to realise that the answer to that was no because the role does not have the same variety as the guard's role. Indeed I also expressed the view that any dilution of the guard's role along the lines now being suggested would turn the job into that of a glorified shopkeeper and if I wanted that sort of job there were plenty available that didn't require getting up in the middle of the night. For very many this fight is most definitely worth having.
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
Ok so if they can "see" what the DfT are doing, why are they sitting outside stations on a camping chair on strike days, drinking from a thermos and (in the public eye) blaming all this on Northern instead of marching on Parliament?
 

CN75

Member
Joined
4 Sep 2017
Messages
179
Infrastructure. Billions were spent on the Southern Network in the late 80s Early 90s and also the Railway was on its a**e. DOO was seen as a way of cutting costs on quieter services and NOT on the jam packed 12 Car sets that they have now. Times have changed and yes Technology has improved.

As Carlisle says, converting to DOO on London routes was a matter of putting up mirrors and cameras and bringing in trains with sliding doors, before asking along ASLEF to sign it off. The difference was the CSR radio system which made it possible for the signal box to talk to trains in an emergency. It’s also a myth that BR picked quieter, slower services with less passengers to creep in DOO. Usually, dead branch lines were the last to convert on a general route area. DOO was proven technically safe enough and therefore how long the trains were or how many people were on board was considered irrelevant.
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
Ok so if they can "see" what the DfT are doing, why are they sitting outside stations on a camping chair on strike days, drinking from a thermos and (in the public eye) blaming all this on Northern instead of marching on Parliament?

Probably because they have to be seen to be conducting a dispute with their employer, ie Northern. Marching on Parliament is a somewhat political act and is something trades unions will tend to do only as part of a wider campaign. But I agree with your general sentiment, there's no doubt who's pulling all the strings.
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
Probably because they have to be seen to be conducting a dispute with their employer, ie Northern. Marching on Parliament is a somewhat political act and is something trades unions will tend to do only as part of a wider campaign. But I agree with your general sentiment, there's no doubt who's pulling all the strings.

And yet each and every press release drips with political statements, including attacks on specific politicians. Strikes are a political action, as is choosing to ignore or disbelieve Northern's assertion that jobs are safe until franchise end.
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
Thirdly the removal of prestige and career progression - for a career railwayman being a guard is a responsible job and one to aspire to - again being made subordinate to the driver and losing control over your own train would not be appealing. Particularly if it can just depart without you and you're now formally a 'nice to have'. I like being able to make decisions and I'm not really up for being instructed..

I completely agree with what you say about why a conductor / guard / TM role is so appealing, but I must point out that for several years before the current dispute, traditional conductors on Southern (of which a couple of hundred are still likewise retained) did not have responsibility for the train and were technically subordinate to the driver on a lot of grounds.

This didn't seem to make the role any less valuable - and indeed the driver would generally just "back up" the conductor if a decision was being made about the running of the train.

The problem came when the second member of staff was made optional, rather than mandatory "eyes and ears". A 12 coach 377 is a much scarier prospect than a couple of coaches in Northern land, in terms of what the driver can't really tell about the state of play inside the train, or what they can't do when they have such a huge crowd to control in an emergency. When you start to get into large three-figure or even low four-figure numbers of passengers, it's truly appalling that there's no mandatory legislative requirement for a fully trained second person onboard - or more than one - outside of the main crumple zone.

Part of this, I think, stems from the unfortunate reality that there is little by way of a truly independent professional body to provide scrutiny of railway safety standards, to which perhaps all safety-critical railway staff should subscribe. The RMT et al are some considerable way short of having this competency or respect. There are relevant railway professional institutions, but they tend not to support an en-masse body of opinion held by the bulk of the workforce involved in the safe transit of passengers.

Remember this is the Northern DOO thread not the thread for general DOO discussion and Northern guards have been given a guarantee that they won't have their salary reduced to OBS levels, so they don't need to fight to get it, they get regardless.

Just a quick correction on this one. OBS basic pay on Southern is considerably higher than conductors on the same network. Some of them are paid several thousand more per annum. Depending on the types of routes worked, commission can sometimes also be higher.

As Carlisle says, converting to DOO on London routes was a matter of putting up mirrors and cameras and bringing in trains with sliding doors, before asking along ASLEF to sign it off. The difference was the CSR radio system which made it possible for the signal box to talk to trains in an emergency. It’s also a myth that BR picked quieter, slower services with less passengers to creep in DOO. Usually, dead branch lines were the last to convert on a general route area. DOO was proven technically safe enough and therefore how long the trains were or how many people were on board was considered irrelevant.

BR and earlier privatisation companies generally picked routes where there were sufficient factors, such as frequent staffed stations and good enough radio systems, to gain public support in the event of any debate having occurred. My personal opinion is that they tended not to be so reckless with the deployment of DOO trains without working out how the public could still be persuaded that there was sufficient assistance available in the event of any incident, for example, even if this could turn out to be somewhat theoretical at times.

As for the extension of DOO(P), it's now somewhat more complex than mirrors (which wouldn't now be used), cameras or sliding doors. There's a lot of trackside and platform work which needs to be done to ensure that all locations meet safety standards. In the case of Southern's extensions towards the end of 2016, this required an intense workload for some staff, and cost everyone a lot of money. I can't quantify the exact spending at the moment, but it went so far as keeping all sorts of random bits of railway running 24/7 with test trains, each of which had numerous staff onboard checking the likes of GSM-R coverage and platform lighting.
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,546
Much depends on where you are and what you do I guess. A 2/4/6 coach train heading to/from Skegness or Liverpool or one of our 60 odd mile all station stoppers between Newark and Matlock can keep my hands more than comfortably full for the duration especially considering BR killed off most of our station staffing over a wide area.

Where I am the driver has the rule book responsibility for protecting the train in an emergency as per the whole network but the company policy remains to the point of having a slide in the training presentation for traincrews that the guard is in charge of the train by virtue of being responsible for the passengers and train loading - generally speaking we speak to control and the driver speaks to the signaller and by teamwork we land in the middle.
 

the sniper

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2007
Messages
3,500
Remember this is the Northern DOO thread not the thread for general DOO discussion and Northern guards have been given a guarantee that they won't have their salary reduced to OBS levels, so they don't need to fight to get it, they get regardless.

I don't think you actually read my post. I never said either of those things would be the case. You've completely missed/ignored the point I was making.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,124
BR and earlier privatisation companies generally picked routes where there were sufficient factors, such as frequent staffed stations and good enough radio systems, to gain public support
.
Cab Secure Radio was installed as an integral part of those early schemes only on the routes actually being converted to DOO (ok the South West and West Coast schemes were later scrapped) so reception (theoretically anyway) shouldn’t have been a major problem, Railtrack extended it to the whole of the former BR Southern Region passenger network but that didn’t as far as I’m aware result in any extension of DOO (P) until the Javelin services began.
As for station /dispatch staff, they seem during recent decades to have been reduced across the network regardless of whether DOO exists or not maybe that’s partly due to the disappearance of slam door stock, postal/ newspaper/parcels trains etc.
 
Last edited:

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
I don't think you actually read my post. I never said either of those things would be the case. You've completely missed/ignored the point I was making.

You mentioned guards not wanting to give up their roles due to the salary they get. If you're saying there's no other well paid work or that the guards wouldn't earn as much doing equivalent work outside the rail industry, then it's not a convincing argument in favour of keeping guards. Either there's a shortage of well paid jobs (which is a problem which needs addressing) or you're implying guards are paid more than they are worth. For years people have been saying Northern have had poor staff retention levels but you seem to be saying there aren't better alternatives if guards leave Northern if they don't want to be a CSA on a guard's salary.
 

the sniper

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2007
Messages
3,500
You mentioned guards not wanting to give up their roles due to the salary they get. If you're saying there's no other well paid work or that the guards wouldn't earn as much doing equivalent work outside the rail industry, then it's not a convincing argument in favour of keeping guards. Either there's a shortage of well paid jobs (which is a problem which needs addressing) or you're implying guards are paid more than they are worth. For years people have been saying Northern have had poor staff retention levels but you seem to be saying there aren't better alternatives if guards leave Northern if they don't want to be a CSA on a guard's salary.

Is that a wilful misinterpretation so you can get in the suggestion/dig that Guards are overpaid?

The question people like you keep asking is why staff are striking when they have all these fantastic guarantees (a glorified TTE role until ~2026 with the same pay) and the Guards grade is dead either way. What I'm saying is that numerous people in the Guard grade have little or no interest in being demoted into an OBS style role through no fault of their own, so have no reason to facilitate its smooth introduction. They have little faith in the value or longevity of that role. They resent its implementation and the blatant ideological angle behind it. Have little interest in doing that role anyway, so will have to start looking for alternative employment, be it with more pay, less pay, the same pay... whatever. They've still lost the position they have now, which some will have worked long and hard to reach. Now obviously you say 'that's the way of the world, people get shafted through no fault of their own in employment and leave jobs all the time', no doubt, but in this situation the staff have the opportunity to protest the loss of the position they hold until they're pushed out of it. On top of any other grievances or ill feeling that may be held individually or collectively against the TOC, people will obviously take the opportunity to protest in the only they really can noticeably, by striking. Most would rather go down fighting than wilfully roll over to accept a shafting.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Is that a wilful misinterpretation so you can get in the suggestion/dig that Guards are overpaid?

Well what the hell does this mean then

the sniper said:
A lot of Guards I know have little or no interest in doing an OBS style role, other than because they can't afford to give up the wage or find something else to do.

if it doesn't mean they can't leave their rail industry and get another job which pays the same sort of level with the skills they have at Northern? Is there a shortage of well paid jobs outside the rail industry or do the guards earn more than they are worth? Note I didn't say guards are paid more than they are worth, I said that's one possible reason for why they wouldn't be able to get similar pay with their skills outside the rail industry. However, based on your response I suspect you think that's the real reason but you'd rather act outraged that I suggested it opposed to admitting it is the reason, as you failed to give another reason that's the only logical conclusion!

but in this situation the staff have the opportunity to protest the loss of the position they hold until they're pushed out of it. On top of any other grievances or ill feeling that may be held individually or collectively against the TOC

So guards are unhappy working for Northern as guards but want the role to stay exactly how it is? :roll:
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
So @jcollins cards on the table. Do you believe railway staff are overpaid? Or are other non unionised industries paid pitifully? I would suggest the latter. And all I can see is an ultra right wing Government attacking one of the last industries that has decent pay/conditions & pensions. See why people continually use the “race to the bottom” cliche?
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Dave1987 - railway staff aren't the only unionised industry left. Even if you ignore the low skilled roles which are unionised, people like airline pilots and TV newsreaders are union members.
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
Dave1987 - railway staff aren't the only unionised industry left. Even if you ignore the low skilled roles which are unionised, people like airline pilots and TV newsreaders are union members.

You did not answer the question. Do you believe railway staff are overpaid?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top